SC Overthrows Monitoring Committee Report On Misuse of Residential Premises in Delhi

Must Read

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Follow us

A Full Bench consisting of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice B.R Gavai and Justice Krishna Murari heard the present case. Although encroachments are matters of concern, special Monitoring Committee was appointed by the Apex court, and it was said that it must not exceed its powers.

Brief Facts of the Case

A Monitoring Committee was formed in 2006 under the order of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 399. It was established to check the misuse of residential premises for illegal or commercial purposes in Delhi.

A Report (No.149) submitted by the Monitoring Committee is under scrutiny. This dealt with specific unauthorized constructions carried out in the Vasant Kunj and Rajokari area. These constructions were not on public land. The land was owned by the respective persons (private land). This led to the sealing of those premises. The Committee had acted upon a letter received from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mehraul. This talked about an unauthorized construction in Vasant Kunj, Delhi.

The issue for consideration is if the Monitoring Committee may seal such residential premises on private land. This is particularly when such space is used for non-commercial purposes. In other words, the question arises if this Court has empowered the Monitoring Committee to seal residential premises.

Amicus Curiae’s Arguments

The Monitoring Committee has the power to seal unauthorized construction. Hence, its regularization cannot be allowed.

ASG on Behalf of Ministry of Housing and Environment

The Monitoring Committee is entitled to inspect premises where encroachments are there on public land. This Court constituted the Committee to address the use of “residential premises for a commercial purpose”. Despite the limited mandate to the Monitoring Committee, it could not have sealed other premises.

A Special Task Force of the Committee got constituted. This is to remove the encroachments on public roads, public streets, and pedestrian street. It has the task of overseeing the implementation of the applicable laws on illegal constructions, encroachment on public land, public parks, parking places, roads, pavements, etc only.

Counsel on Behalf of Government of NCT of Delhi

The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act is a complete code by itself. The Delhi Municipal Corporation is a statutory body which cannot be deprived of its functions. The legislature has conferred statutory power to seal or demolish on the Municipal Corporation. Thereby, the Monitoring Committee cannot exercise its power in total abrogation to the powers of the statutory bodies.

The Supreme Court appointed the Monitoring Committee to prevent the misuse of residential premises for commercial use. This does not include residential premises used for residential purposes.

Court’s View

The Committee was established through the judgment in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 399. It considered a largescale conversion of residential premises for commercial use. The only point of consideration was the misuse of residential premises for illegal or commercial purposes. Para 14 of the judgment states that it did not consider the issue of unauthorized constructions in general.

The Court via its interim orders did not allow the Monitoring Committee to seal the residential properties being used for residential purposes. Also, another order directed the Monitoring Committee to take care of the unauthorized colonies about public land. And, the Special Task Force under the Committee was to remove the encroachments from the public roads and public streets. The Court concluded that the Monitoring Committee was only appointed for checking commercial misuse of the residential properties. It has not empowered the Monitoring Committee to take action on residential premises not used for commercial purpose.

The Bench referred to the case of K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1. It said that when the Committee is not empowered to take action, the affected persons could not have been deprived of the due process of protection.

In the action of the Monitoring Committee, no appeal lies elsewhere. Even the High Court is not authorized to entertain any matter and scrutinize its action. The Supreme Court has taken such an exceptional measure in the public interest. And it is confined to the misuse of residential property for commercial purpose and encroachments and unauthorized construction on the public land, roads. The Committee has been clear about its purpose in the past. It had in the present case acted based on a letter issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Court opined it was not permitted to act in such a manner.

Court’s Decision

The Monitoring Committee had no power to look into the matter and to take any action. The Court ordered de-sealing of the property sealed as per Report No.149. Also, the possession was to be restored to the owners within three days. Further, the bench remarked that this action does not belittle the efforts of the Committee in the protection of the National Capital.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -